Dear Organlearners,
Simon Buckingham <go57@dial.pipex.com> writes in LO15748
> The four fundamental forces in the unorganized world allow individuals to
> avoid coercion and dependence. Bounded rationality causes the problems
> from interventions by institutions, but this limited understanding and
> control can be overcome by the voluntary exchange principle that
> facilitates collapsible corporations because of reduced transaction costs
> because markets are now contestable.
Simon, your sentence "The four fundamental forces in the unorganized world
allow individuals to avoid coercion and dependence." struck me as a
profound statement. Consequently I have browsed through
<http://www.unorg.com/socpol.htm> to find an elucidation on it. I probably
have read too carelessly because I could not find any explanation on these
"four" forces. Would you please care to explain these "four" forces?
I did find your mentioning of "five" forces, but they were in relation to
profitability.
> This thread on democracy really is of interest to all LO members because
> the two biggest threats to individual liberty these days are interventions
> from politicians in government and from managers in corporations.
I would rather say two big threats. For me a much bigger threat to
indiviual liberty is the ignorance of the very individuals concerned.
That is why I can completely identify myself with John Constantine's
statement that democracy has to develop into the ultimate learning
organisation.
However, in your book available on the website mentioned, you caution:
"Beware of strategizers such as Robert Reich, a one-time US labor
secretary, who warn of the ""darker side of cosmopolitanism" (LASCH,
12/03/94). Without national attachments, people are said to have little
inclination to make sacrifices or to accept responsibility for their
actions. "We learn to feel responsible for others because we share with
them a common history... a common culture... a common fate." The
internationalization of business enterprises has apparently produced a
class of people who see themselves as "world citizens, but without
accepting... any of the obligations that citizenship in a polity normally
implies." (LASCH, 12/03/94). This is plainly false, history is outdated
and culture is more homogeneous. National history, culture and citizenship
do not have much relevance in the new international world."
Simon, I disagree with your claim on history. History is not outdated. It
is our most valuable asset in the construction and evaluation of our
system thinking. One reason is its incredible richness in data, provided
we have an accurate and comprehensive documentation on history. Another
reason is that we can only create into the future so that we cannot
influence history and thus upset the lives of people and nature with the
testing of our theories.
I also disagree with your claim on culture being more homogeneous. It is
true that there is a peculiar line of cultural reasoning
(Egypt-Babel-Nineve-Rome-Paris-London-NewYork) through several millenia
which led to the homogenising of cultures. But it is also true that in
many continents where this peculiar line of reasoning did not extend its
influence, exactly the opposite happened, namely a heterogenisation of
cultures. Two noteable continents are Africa and the Americas. In addition
to culture, nature itself all over the world since times immemorial is on
a course of heterogenisation, except for the periods of great upheavel
when certain orders completely vanished, then it is clear that this
peculiar line of cultural reasoning affecting homogenisation is out of
step.
In your book you write of these world citizins as transnationals. Correct
me if I understood you wrongly, but you often express in the book the
opnion that these transnationals, should they operate as economizers, will
be of great benefit to ordinary people. My question now is: To whom will
these these transnationals be responsible for their deeds? In terms of
your last sentence from that which I have quoted, I get the impression
that they will not be responsible to national democracies, but to
"international democracies". This will be devastating to humankind. I can
cite pages and pages of history showing that people who operate "trans"
distinctions (communal, regional, national), distinctions which themselves
have emerged spontaneously, usually caused more harm than good!
Finally, you write:
> Thanks Sherri for starting the thread- it is bound to incite disagreement-
> such divergence of opinions and expectations is the exact reason why
> representative democracy is now flawed!
The more we allow for a "divergence of opinions and expectation" in our
democracies, the less it will be flawed.
This last statement of mine has shocking implications. Let us discuss its
implications.
Best wishes
--At de Lange Gold Fields Computer Centre for Education University of Pretoria Pretoria, South Africa email: amdelange@gold.up.ac.za
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>